R v Cossardeaux [2016] NZDC 6510 (15 April 2016)

Last Updated: 28 September 2016

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA

CRI-2015-070-003651

CRI-2015-070-002499 [2016] NZDC 6510

THE QUEEN

v

_{ALAIN PIERRE FRANCOIS COSSARDEAUX}

Hearing:	15 April 2016
Appearances:	R Jenson for the Crown A Balme for the Defendant
Judgment:	15 April 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE J E MACDONALD ON SENTENCING}

R v COSSARDEAUX [2016] NZDC 6510 [15 April 2016]

[1] Mr Cossardeaux, on 4 March 2016 I gave you a sentence indication of six years’ imprisonment on what was very serious sexual offending. The details of your offending and how I arrived at my sentence indication were fully set out at that time. As Mr Balme has said, I left open the possibility that further mitigating factors revealed in the pre-sentence report or perhaps evidence of remorse, might possibly justify some further reduction.

[2] What I now have before me are three victim impact statements. They make for very sad reading and I am particularly concerned about the possible long-term impact of your offending. At the same time I have to say it is roughly what I might have expected to have occurred having regard to what you did and having regard to the intellectual capabilities of the victims.

[3] I also have a pre-sentence report. The fact of your remorse is noted by the probation officer but in some ways it is then taken away by the probation officer noting that there appeared to be a lack of insight into your offending. However, I take from the report that you are motivated to undertake programmes in prison which hopefully will reduce the risk of re-offending in a similar way in the future. I think that is encouraging.

[4] Beyond that the report refers to your personal situation where I accept you have difficult decisions to make, one of which relates to whether or not you tell your

90 year old mother what you have done. You have the anxiety of course that if she dies you might still be in prison. I have the letters of remorse from you and the letter of support. I have considered those as well.

[5] On the one hand there may be some justification for recognising the remorse you express but I think that is marginal and in any event I think it is taken away by my impression that perhaps the impact on the victims is slightly worse than I originally had anticipated. For those reasons I am not going to make any further deduction from the six year starting point I have indicated.

[6] That leaves the final issue of whether I impose a minimum period of imprisonment. I tentatively considered that at the sentence indication hearing even

though no submissions had been made on that. In the end there are three factors that weigh against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment. The first is your age. You are now 68. The second is that you have not previously been sent to prison. Third, you are receptive to receiving treatment. For those reasons I am not going to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. When precisely you are released will be left as a matter for the Parole Board.

[7] The sentence I impose is six years’ imprisonment on the charges of exploitative sexual connection with a person with significant impairment where the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. I impose two years on the charge of an exploitative indecent act with a person with a significant impairment and six months’ imprisonment on the final two charges of doing an indecent act with an attempt to insult or offend.

[8] All the terms will run concurrently.

J E Macdonald

District Court Judge